Portrait of a Lady Diana Cecil, Countess of Elgin c.1638, Manor House Provenance

circa 1638

This exquisite portrait of a gentleman depicted in a sumptuous black coat edged with silver and slashed sleeves is an excellent example of the type of portrait fashionable in England and the Low Countries during the 17th century. The confident pose, striking orange sash - the colour of the house of Orange Nassau - and the leather gorget imbue the sitter with a sense of masculinity and power. The profusely decorated costume is of the highest quality and de rigueur of an elite class - the artist has carefully cultivated this portrait to emphasise the sitter’s wealth and standing in the society that he belonged to. The casual pose, with one arm resting on a hip, is much less formal than earlier decades, and it speaks of ‘sprezzatura’ – one’s appearance should not appear laborious, but instead, effortless. The oil on cradled panel portrait can be dated to circa 1650 based on the hairstyle and the attire - small falling collar, short doublet (doublets reduced in size to just below the ribcage in the late 1650’s), and the type of slashed sleeves with the sleeve seams left open to reveal the white fabric. The demand for portraits in the Netherlands was great in the 17th century. Bartholemeus van der Helst was considered to be one of the leading portrait painters of the Dutch Golden Age surpassing even Rembrandt as the most sought-after portraitist in Harlaam. The Dutch Golden Age, roughly spanning the 17th century, was a period when Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world. Dutch explorers charted new territory and settled abroad. Trade by the Dutch East-India Company thrived, and war heroes from the naval battles were decorated and became national heroes. During this time, The Dutch Old Masters began to prevail in the art world, creating a depth of realistic portraits of people and life in the area that has hardly been surpassed. The Golden Age painters depicted the scenes that their discerning new middle-class patrons wanted to see. This new wealth from merchant activities and exploration combined with a lack of church patronage, shifted art subjects away from biblical genres. Still life’s of items of everyday objects, landscapes, and seascapes reflecting the naval and trade power that the Republic enjoyed were popular. The new wealthy class were keen to have their portraits commissioned and many artists worked in this lucrative field. Such was the popularity of art that everyone had a painting, even the humble butcher, and hundreds of thousands of paintings were produced. By tradition the sitter is Maarten Tromp (1598-1653) who was an Admiral in the Dutch Navy (the reverse of the portrait contains an old handwritten inscription “van Tromp”). Certainly, the distinctive orange sash is similar to those worn by officers of the Dutch army in the Netherlands who served under the Princes of Orange and the House of Nassau. However, it should be noted that the physiognomy differs from other images of Tromp. Tromp was the oldest son of Harpert Maertensz, a naval officer and captain. He joined the Dutch navy as a lieutenant in July 1622 and was later promoted from captain to Lieutenant-Admiral of Holland and West Frisia in 1637. In 1639, during the Dutch struggle for independence from Spain, Tromp defeated a large Spanish fleet bound for Flanders at the Battle of the Downs, which marked an enormous change - the end of Spanish naval power. He was killed in action during the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1653 where he commanded the Dutch fleet in the battle of Scheveningen. Gloves were an absolutely vital accessory and the elaborate pair in this portrait are embellished with threads of silk and precious metals and salmon-coloured lining. He wears only one glove and holds the other, providing an opportunity to better display the cuffs and detail on his right wrist and forearm. The gloves are probably made from the most prized leather which came from Spain, in particular from Cordova. Cordovan leather was tanned with a special vegetal process that left it both highly impermeable and divinely soft. King Charles I, posed in a rather relaxed manner for Daniel Mytens’s portrait in 1631, is wearing gloves and boots in matching Cordovan leather. The hide is thick, but you can see just how supple it is from the way the gauntlet dimples and the long boot legs fold over themselves, rippling and wrinkling at the ankles. Apart from keeping hands warm the use of gloves during the 15th through the 19th centuries were full of symbolism and they were worn regardless of the season. They kept the skin unblemished - soft, smooth hands were considered highly attractive. This combination of necessity and proximity to bare skin made gloves a deeply personal gift and they took on a strong symbolic significance and were regarded as emblematic of fidelity and loyalty for hundreds of years. Such was the importance of their symbolism was that some gloves were never intended to be worn at all. Their luxury made them ideal gifts at court, and so in the 15th and 16th centuries, ambassadors often presented them as symbols of loyalty. Until the mid-19th century, it was customary to give gloves as tokens to guests at weddings and to mourners at funerals. Gentleman often gifted their bride-to-be with a pair of gloves (the obligatory gift) and were handed over at the betrothal and put on display before the wedding took place. It was probably their direct contact with the skin that led to the eroticism of gloves. Not only were pairs often exchanged between lovers, but from the 16th to the 18th centuries, it was common practice to remove one glove and give it as a gift to a favourite. The idea of the item being presented still warm from the wearer’s hand is certainly suggestive. Following the death of King George IV, his executors purportedly found over a thousand mismatched ladies’ gloves among his possessions. The sentiment of a 17th-century poem reveals the popularity of the practice: “Come to our wedding to requite your loves / Shew us your hands and we’ll fit you with gloves.” Such generosity might be pricey for the hosts, but gloves of varying quality could be offered depending on the status of the recipient. Pairs made with the finest Spanish leather might be reserved for immediate family, while coarse sheep’s leather could be distributed among the servants and tradesmen. The apportioning of quality according to class provided a very clear message of the gloves’ intended use. For refined guests, they were decoration; for the lower classes, they were functional. Bartholomeus van der Helst...

In 1607, the Delft city council decided to commission a portrait of Stadholder Maurits of Nassau for the town hall, with Michiel van Mierevelt as the chosen artist due to the passing...

This magnificent oil on panel portrait, presented by Titan Fine Art, is a splendid example of the sumptuous female portraits that were painted for members of the upper echelons of society during the early part of the 1600’s. The artist has rendered this portrait with meticulous attention to detail and the surface effects of the fine materials. The elaborate lace coif and cuffs are painstakingly delineated, as is the bold black damask, and sumptuous gold decoration of her skirt and stomacher, which is wonderfully preserved and quite remarkable considering the age of the work and the fact that darker pigments are particularly vulnerable to fading and wear. This work with its spectacular depiction of costume is of absolute quality, it can be rated as one of the best works in the artist’s oeuvre and as such it is an important and splendid example of Dutch portraiture. The Dutch Golden Age of painting was a period in Dutch history, roughly spanning the 17th century, in which Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world. Dutch explorers charted new territory and settled abroad. Trade by the Dutch East-India Company thrived, and war heroes from the naval battles were decorated and became national heroes. During this time, The Dutch Old Masters began to prevail in the art world, creating a depth of realistic portraits of people and life in the area that has hardly been surpassed. The Golden Age painters depicted the scenes that their discerning new middleclass patrons wanted to see. This new wealth from merchant activities and exploration combined with a lack of church patronage, shifted art subjects away from biblical genres. Dress was a key component in portraits, and the exuberant attire reiterates the incredible wealth of this woman. The sitter will have visited the artist’s workshop and inspected examples on display. They would have chosen the size and the sort of composition and on that basis negotiated the price – which would have also been determined by the complexity of the clothing and the jewels that were to be depicted, and by the materials to be used. When all was considered, this portrait would have cost the sitter (or her husband) a substantial sum. The colour black was regarded as humble and devout yet at the same time refined and sophisticated and the most expensive colour of fabric to dye and to maintain. Citizens spent fortunes on beautiful black robes. Such uniformity must also have had a psychological side-effect and contributed to a sense of middle-class cohesion; the collective black of the well-to-do burgess class will have given its members a sense of solidarity. The colour was always an exciting one for artists and when this portrait was painted there were at least fifty shades of it, and as many different fabrics and accoutrements. Artists went to great lengths to depict the subtle nuances of the colour and the fabrics and textures and how they reflected light and it was an ideal background against which gold and crisp white lace could be juxtaposed to dramatic effect. The sitter is either a married women or a widower as is evident by the clothing that she wears and the position, toward her right, it is highly likely that this portrait was once a pendant that hung on the right-hand side of her husband’s portrait as was convention at the time. She wears a vlieger which was a type of sleeveless over-gown or cape worn by well-to-do married women in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Variations with short sleeves or high shoulder rolls are known. Sometimes sleeves were attached with aiglets, and often slits were made to allow belts or the hands to pass through. Three-piece vlieger costumes of this kind were standard items of clothing in portraits of the women of the civic elite in the period 1600-40 and was a variant of the Spanish ‘ropa’ and served as a trademark of well-to-do married burgher women. Girls and unmarried woman, including beguines, wore a bouwen (a dress with a fitted bodice and a skirt that was closed all round) instead. This clear distinction between apparel for married and unmarried women is clear not only from inventories and trousseau lists, but also from contemporary sources such as the Dutch Spanish dictionary published by Juan Rodrigues in 1634. In it, a bouwen is described as a ‘ropa de donzella’ (over-gown worn by a virgin) and a vlieger as a ‘ropa de casada’ (overgown worn by a married woman). It is striking how few women are depicted wearing a bouwen, unless they are part of a group, family or children’s portrait and it can therefore be assumed that independent portraits of unmarried women were seldom commissioned. It is also believed that the clothing worn in these portraits existed and were faithfully reproduced when cross-referenced with the few exact documents. These sources also demonstrate that clients wanted their clothing to be depicted accurately and with this in mind precious garments and jewels were often left in the painter’s studio. The prominent white lawn molensteenkraag (or millstone ruff) is held up by a wire supportasse and was reserved only for the citizens that could afford this luxurious item that often required 15 meters of linen batiste. The fabulous wealth of this sitter is also evident by the elaborate lace coif and cuffs which have been exquisitely depicted; lace was often literally copied by artists in thin white lines over the completed clothing. The gold bracelet with jewels is a type that was evidently fashionable as it is seen in a number of portraits during the 1610s and 1620. Clothing and jewellery were prized possessions and were often listed in inventories of estates and passed down from generation to generation. There were a great number of jewellers of Flemish origin working at all the courts and cities of Europe, competing with the Italians, and then the French, adapting themselves to the tastes and positions of their patrons and the raw materials available in the country where they worked. The fashion for jewels “in the Flemish style” succeeded that of the Italian style. Cornelis van der Voort, who was probably born in Antwerp around 1576, came to Amsterdam with his parents as a child. His father, a cloth weaver by trade, received his citizenship in 1592. It is not known who taught the young Van der Voort to paint, but it has been suggested that it was either Aert Pietersz or Cornelis Ketel. On 24 October 1598 Van der Voort became betrothed to Truytgen Willemsdr. After his first wife’s death he became betrothed to Cornelia Brouwer of Dordrecht in 1613. In addition to being an artist, Van der Voort was an art collector or dealer, or both. In 1607 he bought paintings from the estate of Gillis van Coninxloo, and after an earlier sale in 1610 a large number of works he owned were auctioned on 7 April 1614. Van der Voort is documented as appraising paintings in 1612, 1620 and 1624. In 1615 and 1619 he was warden of the Guild of St Luke. He was buried in Amsterdam’s Zuiderkerk on 2 November 1624, and on 13 May 1625 paintings in his estate were sold at auction. Van der Voort was one of Amsterdam’s leading portrait painters in the first quarter of the 17th century. Several of his group portraits are known. It is believed that he trained Thomas de Keyser (1596/97-1667) and Nicolaes Eliasz Pickenoy (1588-1650/56). His documented pupils were David Bailly (c. 1584/86-1657), Louis du Pré...

Titan Fine Art present this picture which formed part of a historic collection of an English aristocratic family, Lord and Lady Sandys at their magnificent baroque and Regency Grade-I listed family home, Ombersley Court. The house was among the most fascinating survivals of its kind in this country. The atmospheric interiors were distinguished above all for the works of art associated with two key moments in national history and, more specifically, to the roles of Colonel the Hon. John Russell in the Civil War and the reign of King Charles II and of Lord Arthur Hill, later 2nd Baron Sandys, in the Peninsular War. The collection was acquired or commissioned over five centuries and remained at Ombersley Court until its recent sale, the first in 294 years. This painting hung in The Great Hall (see photo). This charming portrait is an example of the type of small-scale panel portraits, often of splendid beauties of the time, that became fashionable from about the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The sitter has been depicted wearing a low-cut silk dress with the wide billowing sleeves typical of the late 1630’s. The simplicity of the ensemble is reinforced by the absence of lace on either the collar or cuffs. At this time gone are the complicated layers of fabrics, and now replaced with understated elegance of plain silk (satin and taffeta were most popular), with only a couple of focal points as accessories. There is an abundance of the accessory par excellence – pearls, and they are worn as a necklace, on her attire, and as earrings; the pear-shaped earrings are called ‘unions excellence’ reflecting the difficulty of finding perfectly matched pearls of such large size. They could range up to 20 millimetres in diameter. There is a splendid display of gold, diamond and pearl jewellery which is an obvious sign of her wealth. The portrait is thought to represent Thomas Bruce (1596-1654), Earl of Elgin. The physiognomy and features in our portrait strongly correlate to a portrait of the Earl, by Cornelius Johnson (1593-1661), painted circa 1638, and is held at Kenwood House, London. Another painting from Ombersley Court, also with Titan Fine Art, is contemporaneous to ours and is thought to represent the Earl’s wife, Diana Cecil, 1st Countess of Elgin (c.1603-1654) - it appears to have derived from Cornelius Johnson’s depiction of the Countess circa 1638, also at Kenwood House. During the 1630’s Johnson painted a number of portraits, obviously influenced by Van Dyke. Here, Theodore Russel, who worked in the studios of both Van Dyle and Johnson, and later specialised in small scale reproductions of his master’s works, modelled the head, with the striking large dark eyes, on Cornelius Johnson, and the attire on Anthony van Dyke. There are also other portraits by Johnson of the sitter with very similar facial features to that of the sitter in ours. Theodore Russel and Cornelius Johnson also had a family connection as it is thought that Russel’s step-mother was a sister of Johnson. Thomas Bruce, 1st Earl of Elgin, was a prominent Scottish nobleman who held titles such as the 3rd Lord Bruce of Kinloss. He resided at Houghton House in Bedfordshire and played a significant role in the political and social landscape of his time. His legacy as an Earl and Lord continues to be remembered in history. Thomas Bruce, born in Edinburgh in 1599, inherited the Scottish peerage title as the 3rd Lord Bruce of Kinloss at the age of 13 following his brother's untimely death in a duel. The family's estates, including Whorlton Castle and manor, were granted by King James I of England to Thomas's father, with the wardship of Thomas and the estates entrusted to his mother until he reached the age of 21. He maintained a strong connection with King Charles I's court during the Personal Rule, receiving titles of honour and prestigious roles throughout the years. Thomas Bruce was married twice in his lifetime. His first marriage was to Anne Chichester in 1622. Ann died in 1627, the day after giving birth to their only child, Robert Bruce, who later became the 1st Earl of Ailesbury. On 12 November 1629, Thomas Bruce married Lady Diana Cecil, the daughter of William Cecil and widow of Henry de Vere. The marriage was childless, but Diana brought significant estates with her. Thomas Bruce died on 21 December 1663 at the age of 64. This oil on panel portrait has been well cared for over its life, which spans almost four centuries. Having recently undergone a treatment to remove an obscuring discoloured varnish, it can be fully appreciated, and attributed to Theodore Russel. Once owned by Evesham Abbey, the manor of Ombersley was acquired by the Sandys family in the early 1600s, when Sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son of Edwin Sandys, Bishop of Worcester and later Archbishop of York, took a lease on the manor, before receiving an outright grant in 1614. The present house, Ombersley Court, dates from the time of Samuel, 1st Lord Sandys, between 1723 and 1730. The house itself is a fine example of an English Georgian country house set in rolling countryside and surrounded by Wellingtonias, planted to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo by Arthur Hill, 2nd Baron Sandys, who played a distinguished part in the battle and was one of the Duke of Wellington’s aides de camp. The Duke also stayed in the house and in the Great Hall, was the Waterloo banner which was brought to the house by Sir Arthur Hill, aide-de-camp to the Duke of Wellington, who succeeded his mother, the Marchioness of Downshire as 2nd Lord Sandys. Further Waterloo memorabilia are kettle drums from battle. The family had a strong tradition of military and political service, dating back to the 17th century, and this was also reflected in the fine collection of portraits and paintings in the house. In short, Ombersley represented a vital aspect of British history. The house and more especially the collection were of the greatest historical importance. Houses that have remained in the possession of the same family for as many as three centuries have become increasingly rare. Through this portrait, collectors have a chance to acquire a piece of British history and an evocative vestige of a glittering way of life, which is now gone. Presented in a fine period frame. Theodore Russell, or Roussel, was born in London in 1614. His father came from Bruges to England and was the Royal Stuart jeweller. His apprenticeship was spent in the studio of his uncle, Cornelius Johnson, with whom he lived for about nine years. Sometime after 1632, he is said to have worked as an assistance to Van Dyck. He executed numerous copies of portraits by his famous master and other notable painters, also painting original works. He is particularly remembered for his portraits of Charles II at Woburn Abbey and James II at the Palace of Holyrood. His son, Antony Russel (c.1663–1743) was also a portrait-painter and is said to have studied under John Riley. Several of his copies were in the Royal Collections, and among the nobility. Provenance Richard Hill...

Titan Fine Art are pleased to present this charming bust-length portrait, which is a good example of the style of portrait painted in England in the second quarter of the seventeenth century. The attire consists of the finest silks, and the full billowing sleeves, bows, and hairstyle help in dating this portrait to circa 1637. The accessory par excellence – pearls – are worn as a necklace and were a very popular accessory. The artist makes no attempt to obey the rules of Baroque and instead sensitively depicts in complete honesty his sitter against a plain wall, and without distracting backdrops and flowing draperies – this work is very redolent of the sumptuous half-length female portraits that Cornelius Johnson...

Portrait of Colonel William Helyar (1621-1698) and Rachel Helyar (c.1633-1678) c.1656 Circle of Robert Walker (act. 1637-1656) These fascinating portraits, presented by Titan Fine Art, depict Colonel William Helyar, High Sheriff of Somersetshire, and his wife Rachel Helyar nee Wyndham, a daughter and co-heiress of Sir Hugh Wyndham, 1st Baronet (died 1663) of Pilsden Court, Dorset. They are exquisite examples of portraiture during the Interregnum when England was under various forms of republican government. The history of the seventeenth century is in part the story of the Stewarts and their approach to government and the church; their ebbing and flowing popularity and the disastrous decisions that led to Civil War. But another fascinating dynasty also ruled Britain: the Cromwell’s. Between 1653 and 1659, following the Civil Wars and experimental Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell governed as Lord Protector followed by his son Richard. Cromwell’s Protectorate is usually imagined as a grey, joyless, military regime. But the reality was rather different. Cromwell presided over a colourful and fashionable court where music and the arts flourished, masques were revived and the first English operas performed. Too often the London of the 1650s is painted as puritanical and repressive in contrast to the vivid, fun-loving capital of the Restoration. Yet, under Cromwell, this was the city where the first coffee houses were opening, where a young Samuel Pepys was embarking on his career as a civil servant with the patronage of one of Cromwell’s councillors and where Christopher Wren was enjoying his new Chair of astronomy at Gresham College, appointed after the personal intervention of Cromwell. When Cromwell was invested as Lord Protector for the second time in 1657, the lavish ceremony in Westminster Hall and procession through London matched any previous coronation for pageantry with thousands lining the streets, bells ringing, bonfires blazing and free French wine flowing through the city. The gentleman in our portrait is Colonel William Helyar (1621-1698), Sheriff of Somerset and as a Royalist during the English Civil War. As one of the most prominent old families of the South-West, the Helyar’s family roots in Somerset can be traced back to 1616 when the Reverend William Helyar (1559-1645), chaplain to Elizabeth I, who was also a cousin by marriage, purchased the family residence Coker Court in East Coker, Somerset. He married a Devonshire heiress and several estates were bestowed on him as a result. He was a warm supporter of Charles I in the Civil War and was in residence at Exeter in 1643 when the Parliamentarians pillaged the cathedral. Elderly as he was, he boldly resisted them, but was beaten, pelted with mud, and locked up in a ship in the port and only let out on payment of £800. He retired to Coker where he died in 1645. His eldest son Henry died in 1634 and he was succeeded by his grandson, Colonel William Helyar, the sitter in our portrait. Colonel Helyar raised a troop of horse for King Charles I and was a colonel in the king's army. He was at Exeter when it was captured by the Parliamentary forces in 1646 and thus deemed ‘Traitor to the Parliament’. His estates were sequestered, but they were returned and he was discharged and pardoned on payment of £1,522. During the Restoration he was a Sheriff and he also helped James II repel the Monmouth Rebellion. The companion portrait represents the Colonel’s wife, Rachel Helyar (baptised 24th June 1633 at St Mary Aldermanbury, London – died 1678). She was the youngest daughter and co-heir of Sir Hugh Wyndham, 1st Baronet of Pilsdon Court and Mary Wyndham nee Alanson (Sir Hugh should not be confused with his first cousin once removed from Somerset, also Sir Hugh Wyndham (bef. 1604 - 1684). Rachel is a thirteenth generation descendant of King Henry III. The couple resided at the family seat of Coker Court (interestingly, within the churchyard, lie the remains of the poet T.S. Eliot who once wrote a poem about East Coker). A marriage settlement in extant shows that the couple were married in 1656; the portraits were most likely painted to mark this important event in the sitter’s lives. Rachel holds roses, the flower of love, and the putto pouring water is representative of her purity, and possibly, the plighting of troth. Colonel Helyar wears a gold wedding band. The couple had four sons: George, William (MP) (1662-1742), John, and Richard. Colonel Helyar died in December 1697 and was buried at Whitechurch, Dorset 2 Jan 1698. This period in which this portrait was painted was known as the Protectorate (1653-1659). This period offered relative peace, as the English Civil War ended in 1651. It was an interesting time for portraiture in England and Scotland – in between the great artistic geniuses and dominance of Van Dyke and Peter Lely. Much of the foreign-born artistic talent had fled England and Scotland during the Civil War and the artists that had remained were in great demand, in part due to the newly exposed strata of society wishing to be painted. Sitters on both sides were depicted in portraits in very similar ways. They are not, on the whole, shown as the Roundheads and Cavaliers of popular history. In fact, it is usually impossible to guess their political allegiances from the style of their portrait and their Parliamentarian and royalist iconographies, as portraits on both sides followed the same conventions and looked identical. Colonel Helyar has been depicted in armour and holding a Marshal’s baton of command, confirming his status. There is a great sense of realism and a particular delicacy, note the finely rendered hand resting on the rapier. Rachel is wearing a satin dress with expansive sleeves and a crimson drapery over her shoulder and held up by her left hand. She wears large pearl...

Painted in the 19th century, this exquisite miniature portrait wonderfully exemplifies realism in traditional oil painting. The small artwork is painted in the conventional portraiture style of the Old Masters, and achieves soft realism with fine brushwork and a subdued, neutral palette. The half length portrait depicts a fine Victorian woman dressed in all black with a delicate lace collar and bonnet. She wears a ruby broach...

Charles Jervas (1675-1739) Portrait of Joseph Mellish (1675-1733) Oil on canvas; held in a carved period frame Dimensions refer to size of frame. Provenance: Blyth Hall, Nottinghamshire, England; by descent to Sir Andrew Buchanan of Hodsock Priory, Nottinghamshire In 1635 John Mellish, a merchant tailor of London, bought the estate of Blyth in Nottinghamshire. His son, a wealthy Oporto merchant, dying unmarried, left Blyth in 1703 to a cousin, Joseph Mellish, who became one of Newcastle’s earliest and most important political supporters in the county. He went up to Clare College, Cambridge in 1692 and on to the Inner Temple the following year. He married Dorothea Gore, daughter of Sir William Gore...

Henry Pickering, Portrait of a Gentleman Oil on canvas; signed and dated 1759; held in a giltwood period frame Provenance: Lenygon & Morant Ltd. c.1900; Knoedler, October 1912 (Sto...

This oil on canvas painting is of an agricultural worker in the Hudson Valley. The artist painted migrant workers on a farm in this series of works. His smiling face is a sharp contr...

This large horizontal 37 inch high and 76 inch wide original oil painting on canvas is wired and ready to hang. The detail in this artwork is astounding. The crimson red tones make t...

A fine European portrait of a priest, oil on canvas, probably dating to the 17th or 18th century, unsigned, with original stretcher, minor surface losses and damage, craquelure, edge...